Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Sat, 29 October 2011 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560F821F846D for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.329, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvn+UFIgBSkP for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BF87221F8467 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1706 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2011 02:42:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2011 02:42:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=MEHr3o5AUgq4tOp3DQat0xjSiUzEJRTa1Lpg4cjFg5A=; b=E4EPMUpuWj+MqVWMW3O7rxu2nCX9N4f0U2COwMSDydDGPK6Wb9TK4/uXoC0ygorGhw6VCmFLtCtmHjJMhRE4a7IHGd5KKe2v7xJxbkTHj6b+avi0+s0M/LS1kGy2nqoM;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.242]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1RJysF-0005MJ-2V; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:42:19 -0600
Message-ID: <4EAB6808.7030006@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:42:16 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietfhasmat@sleevi.com>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 02:42:21 -0000

 >>   The max-age directive MUST appear once in the Strict-Transport-Security
 >>   header field value. The includeSubDomains directive MAY appear once.
 >>   The order of appearance of directives in the Strict-Transport-Security
 >>   header field value is not significant.
 >>
 >>   Additional directives extending the the semantic functionality of
 >>   the Strict-Transport-Security header field may be defined in other
 >
 > MAY or might ?

yes, a good question.

I believe that there's examples in other RFCs of the use of the lower-case 
"may" in situations similar to this (I've seen it discussed many times over the 
years). I.e., not all instances of "may" in any given RFC are capitalized 
"MAY"s. In this case, "MAY" isn't appropriate IIRC.

And yes, a way to avoid that question/issue is to use a different word such as 
"might" or "can", which i can do.  I just thought a "may" has more correct 
connotations (but I /knew/ it'd come up as a question :)

thanks,

=JeffH